Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

HEY, QUILTBAG, WE DON'T LIKE YOUR KIND 'ROUND HERE

Posts

pro-tip: having an acronym that includes everyone but cisgender heterosexuals is ridiculously exclusionary

because really

what use do you have for such an acronym?

to discuss social issues?

the groups in your acronym don't even have the same social issues

well, first i am straight and white, and i've never felt excluded. (i can't believe i just typed "as a straight white man" unironically.)

but also it really does make sense to have a group that's about protecting and working to the advantage of "everyone other than straight cisgendered people" because that group of people share something really important: a common enemy. the kind of person who opposes gay rights (or is simply homophobic in their everyday interactions) is practically guaranteed to be similarly bigoted against people who are bisexual or transgender or intersex or prettymucheverythinginthatacronym, and someone who's bigoted against trans people is far more likely to be homophobic than is someone who's a trans ally.

the social issues of the various groups may differ in the same way that a disease might manifest differently in different people, but the cure is the same for all groups: getting rid of the underlying bigotry that hurts all of them.

oh shit i forgot who i was replying to until i read the rest of the thread oh well

And yet he's raising a very valid point.

My last girlfriend - we'll call her Sue - was solidly bisexual, and her previous girlfriend was solid lesbian. She frequently accused Sue of "faking it", not "picking a side", basically pretending to be bi to appease hetero-norms in society, and a whole bunch of other close-minded notions regarding human sexuality.

So if your argument is that QUILTBAGs are completely unified against the "common enemy", you are woefully mistaken.

[Edit] I'm not even sure I still have a grasp on what's being argued. Is QUILTBAG an actual organization? Or just a blanket term to define sexual orientation, occasionally invoked to represent sexual equality?

in reality, as in, the real world where actual social change against discriminated groups takes place

it's actually important to have a clear, highly specific voice to combat specific issues, to fight battles on the battlegrounds they're made for, and that the more you shotgun multiple causes under a single umbrella, the less effective each message becomes

compared to if each message tried to have its own, distinct voice to complain about its distinct issues

the sort of unilateral approach you suggest is basically akin to saying "Man we could just solve economic problems if we just stopped being greedy, maaaaaaan"

no

we fix economic imbalances with fiscal reforms and new policies to address specific problems that form an underlying foundation for larger issues

social problems (and discrimination against transgender individuals and non-heterosexuals is a social problem) are fixed by addressing underlying foundations and bulwarks and tearing them down and rebuilding them as they exist

for example, the battle for gay rights in the US is not some buzzing noise about happiness and rainbows

it's opposition to DADT and fighting for gay marriage

that gets harder to do the more "Yeah, and also...!" messages you include

well I was a young liberal college student like, five years ago

and while I agree that it is important to have a clear, specific voice when you're speaking out against injustice, I think that if you're fighting for simple tolerance and legal acknowledgement just for gay men or just for trans people then you might get some legal rights but you're unlikely to get anywhere in terms of actual social change

The part of your post that I bolded? I agree 100%. That's why I don't think you can separate out people based on the specific manner in which they are discriminated against by, and I use this word at the peril of being labelled a young liberal college student, heteronormativity.

And I'm sorry I assumed you were straight. You were making an argument I'm used to hearing from straight people looking to delegitimize the gay rights movement/feminism. (also deeply intertwined in my opinion) I shouldn't be dismissive of people like that.

like you might be fucking stunned how highly specific people are in their prejudices

shit-tons of people out there who are totally cool with gay people, but not bisexuals

totally cool with bisexuals, but not genderqueer people

i've known, personally, quite a few homosexuals who were transphobic as fuck

i, personally, posited an ignorant-ass opinion of asexuals earlier in this very thread despite not being a heterosexual

you might think "but the majority enemy is cisgendered heterosexuals!" and you're right

but they're also mostly white people, too

you gonna include "Blacks" in your backronym?

i had actually written into that first post a pre-emptive response to this but i deleted it because i figured it was unnecessary.

anyway, it's not necessary that there be a perfect 100% overlap. some people might have highly specific prejudices from among those groups but most do not. for instance, you're simply not going to be able to argue that rates of homophobia among devout trans allies are likely equal to those of transphobic people. imagine a venn diagram of "people who hate X" and "people who hate Y" and so on. some are going to overlap way more than others--the diagrams for "people who hate gay people" and "people who hate trans people" and "bisexual" and "genderqueer" and so on are going to overlap among themselves way way more than that group as a whole will overlap with the circles for "people who hate black people" or "people who hate women" or whatever

I find the idea fascinating that QUILTBAG specifically excludes cisgendered heterosexuals specifically while being as inclusive as possible in all other aspects because of the idea that the vast majority of the people discriminating against the groups in QUILTBAG are cisgendered heterosexuals

yet it also excludes race (the majority of the QUILTBAG hatin' folk are white people) and religion (the majority of the QUILTBAG hatin' people are Christian or Muslim)

especially bizarre considering that last bit (religion) is the main reason people state as their foundation for being dipshits against sexual minorities.

oh shit i forgot who i was replying to until i read the rest of the thread oh well

And yet he's raising a very valid point.

My last girlfriend - we'll call her Sue - was solidly bisexual, and her previous girlfriend was solid lesbian. She frequently accused Sue of "faking it", not "picking a side", basically pretending to be bi to appease hetero-norms in society, and a whole bunch of other close-minded notions regarding human sexuality.

So if your argument is that QUILTBAGs are completely unified against the "common enemy", you are woefully mistaken.

[Edit] I'm not even sure I still have a grasp on what's being argued. Is QUILTBAG an actual organization? Or just a blanket term to define sexual orientation, occasionally invoked to represent sexual equality?

biphobia in the gay community is a documented problem, but i think it would be hard to argue that the group of people fighting for gay rights overall isn't more accepting of bi/trans/queer/asexual/whatever people than is the norm

I find the idea fascinating that QUILTBAG specifically excludes cisgendered heterosexuals specifically while being as inclusive as possible in all other aspects because of the idea that the vast majority of the people discriminating against the groups in QUILTBAG are cisgendered heterosexuals

yet it also excludes race (the majority of the QUILTBAG hatin' folk are white people) and religion (the majority of the QUILTBAG hatin' people are Christian or Muslim)

especially bizarre considering that last bit (religion) is the main reason people state as their foundation for being dipshits against sexual minorities.

like you might be fucking stunned how highly specific people are in their prejudices

shit-tons of people out there who are totally cool with gay people, but not bisexuals

totally cool with bisexuals, but not genderqueer people

i've known, personally, quite a few homosexuals who were transphobic as fuck

i, personally, posited an ignorant-ass opinion of asexuals earlier in this very thread despite not being a heterosexual

you might think "but the majority enemy is cisgendered heterosexuals!" and you're right

but they're also mostly white people, too

you gonna include "Blacks" in your backronym?

i had actually written into that first post a pre-emptive response to this but i deleted it because i figured it was unnecessary.

anyway, it's not necessary that there be a perfect 100% overlap. some people might have highly specific prejudices from among those groups but most do not. for instance, you're simply not going to be able to argue that rates of homophobia among devout trans allies are likely equal to those of transphobic people. imagine a venn diagram of "people who hate X" and "people who hate Y" and so on. some are going to overlap way more than others--the diagrams for "people who hate gay people" and "people who hate trans people" and "bisexual" and "genderqueer" and so on are going to overlap among themselves way way more than that group as a whole will overlap with the circles for "people who hate black people" or "people who hate women" or whatever

so you think that it's notable that the majority of people who hate QUILTBAGs are cisgendered heterosexuals

but not that they are white, or religious

because "black" and "atheist/agnostic" aren't part of your acronym, man

you are defining the most prominent people to stand outside your group as cisgendered heterosexuals because those are traits the majority of them haters share

but not their race (which quite frankly is probably irrelevant anyway) or their religious beliefs (which is actually really relevant as it serves for the primary stated reason for the hatin'!)

[Edit] I'm not even sure I still have a grasp on what's being argued. Is QUILTBAG an actual organization? Or just a blanket term to define sexual orientation, occasionally invoked to represent sexual equality?

It's an acronym I found on urbandictionary.com and thought might make a little food for thought to start out an all-inclusive sex thread in which people (Quiltbags and straights alike) could talk about their sexual proclivities without animosity or recrimination. Apparently I was wrong about the animosity and recrimination thing, but

I find the idea fascinating that QUILTBAG specifically excludes cisgendered heterosexuals specifically while being as inclusive as possible in all other aspects because of the idea that the vast majority of the people discriminating against the groups in QUILTBAG are cisgendered heterosexuals

yet it also excludes race (the majority of the QUILTBAG hatin' folk are white people) and religion (the majority of the QUILTBAG hatin' people are Christian or Muslim)

especially bizarre considering that last bit (religion) is the main reason people state as their foundation for being dipshits against sexual minorities.

I'm not sure where you got this idea! Maybe if you were talking exclusively about North America? But even then you'd have to rely purely on numbers rather than proportions

[Edit] I'm not even sure I still have a grasp on what's being argued. Is QUILTBAG an actual organization? Or just a blanket term to define sexual orientation, occasionally invoked to represent sexual equality?

It's an acronym I found on urbandictionary.com and thought might make a little food for thought to start out an all-inclusive sex thread in which people (Quiltbags and straights alike) could talk about their sexual proclivities without animosity or recrimination. Apparently I was wrong about the animosity and recrimination thing, but

wherever I go

there I am

and there follows combativeness and argumentativeness

it's just who I am

maybe your attempted thread at frank and open discussion of sexuality and sexual proclivities shouldn't have opened up with a weird acronym that specifically excludes some sexualities for political reasons

like you might be fucking stunned how highly specific people are in their prejudices

shit-tons of people out there who are totally cool with gay people, but not bisexuals

totally cool with bisexuals, but not genderqueer people

i've known, personally, quite a few homosexuals who were transphobic as fuck

i, personally, posited an ignorant-ass opinion of asexuals earlier in this very thread despite not being a heterosexual

you might think "but the majority enemy is cisgendered heterosexuals!" and you're right

but they're also mostly white people, too

you gonna include "Blacks" in your backronym?

i had actually written into that first post a pre-emptive response to this but i deleted it because i figured it was unnecessary.

anyway, it's not necessary that there be a perfect 100% overlap. some people might have highly specific prejudices from among those groups but most do not. for instance, you're simply not going to be able to argue that rates of homophobia among devout trans allies are likely equal to those of transphobic people. imagine a venn diagram of "people who hate X" and "people who hate Y" and so on. some are going to overlap way more than others--the diagrams for "people who hate gay people" and "people who hate trans people" and "bisexual" and "genderqueer" and so on are going to overlap among themselves way way more than that group as a whole will overlap with the circles for "people who hate black people" or "people who hate women" or whatever

so you think that it's notable that the majority of people who hate QUILTBAGs are cisgendered heterosexuals

but not that they are white, or religious

because "black" and "atheist/agnostic" aren't part of your acronym, man

you are defining the most prominent people to stand outside your group as cisgendered heterosexuals because those are traits the majority of them haters share

but not their race (which quite frankly is probably irrelevant anyway) or their religious beliefs (which is actually really relevant as it serves for the primary stated reason for the hatin'!)

i find that bizarre

you're making a pretty basic reading mistake here. it's not that the common enemy justifying the acronym is "cisgender people" and "straight people," it's "people who hate non-cisgender people" and "people who hate non-straight people". i don't think it's notable that the majority of people who hate QUILTBAGs are cisgendered heterosexuals, though i imagine that's true: it's notable that people who hate gay people are also often people who hate trans people, and the same is true for all the terms on that list. the same is not true for (people who hate) black people, atheists, and women.

that seems like a pretty comprehensive response. is there anything else?

like you might be fucking stunned how highly specific people are in their prejudices

shit-tons of people out there who are totally cool with gay people, but not bisexuals

totally cool with bisexuals, but not genderqueer people

i've known, personally, quite a few homosexuals who were transphobic as fuck

i, personally, posited an ignorant-ass opinion of asexuals earlier in this very thread despite not being a heterosexual

you might think "but the majority enemy is cisgendered heterosexuals!" and you're right

but they're also mostly white people, too

you gonna include "Blacks" in your backronym?

i had actually written into that first post a pre-emptive response to this but i deleted it because i figured it was unnecessary.

anyway, it's not necessary that there be a perfect 100% overlap. some people might have highly specific prejudices from among those groups but most do not. for instance, you're simply not going to be able to argue that rates of homophobia among devout trans allies are likely equal to those of transphobic people. imagine a venn diagram of "people who hate X" and "people who hate Y" and so on. some are going to overlap way more than others--the diagrams for "people who hate gay people" and "people who hate trans people" and "bisexual" and "genderqueer" and so on are going to overlap among themselves way way more than that group as a whole will overlap with the circles for "people who hate black people" or "people who hate women" or whatever

so you think that it's notable that the majority of people who hate QUILTBAGs are cisgendered heterosexuals

but not that they are white, or religious

because "black" and "atheist/agnostic" aren't part of your acronym, man

you are defining the most prominent people to stand outside your group as cisgendered heterosexuals because those are traits the majority of them haters share

but not their race (which quite frankly is probably irrelevant anyway) or their religious beliefs (which is actually really relevant as it serves for the primary stated reason for the hatin'!)

i find that bizarre

you're making a pretty basic reading mistake here. it's not that the common enemy justifying the acronym is "cisgender people" and "straight people," it's "people who hate non-cisgender people" and "people who hate non-straight people". i don't think it's notable that the majority of people who hate QUILTBAGs are cisgendered heterosexuals, though i imagine that's true: it's notable that people who hate gay people are also often people who hate transpeople, and the same is true for all the terms on that list. the same is not true for black people, atheists, and women.

that seems like a pretty comprehensive response. is there anything else?

monroe, when this one dies (gets a couple pages back) you should just start a new one! i like having a sex thread around, the people that post there tend to be the ones i like and i'm lazy so i want them to all be in the same place

but really when I'm looking to label people I have two categories 1) Likes: boys/girls/both/neither/other 2) Is: cis/trans/other

so I guess I see what pony was saying about including trans in the list? or at least I have a point of view that kind of lines up with what I think pony said

either way this thread is not as much fun as it could have been

right, those are two different things, basically

one is gender

the other is sexual proclivity

one is not intrinsically connected to the other

I have personally met transgendered people who resent being considered "queer" or being lumped in with queer rights acronyms because they self-identify as heterosexuals and calling them "queer" even though they are heterosexual essentially undermines their gender status

it's like saying "Yeah, you think you're straight, but because you aren't cisgendered you aren't really straight"

but really when I'm looking to label people I have two categories 1) Likes: boys/girls/both/neither/other 2) Is: cis/trans/other

so I guess I see what pony was saying about including trans in the list? or at least I have a point of view that kind of lines up with what I think pony said

either way this thread is not as much fun as it could have been

right, those are two different things, basically

one is gender

the other is sexual proclivity

one is not intrinsically connected to the other

I have personally met transgendered people who resent being considered "queer" or being lumped in with queer rights acronyms because they self-identify as heterosexuals and calling them "queer" even though they are heterosexual essentially undermines their gender status

it's like saying "Yeah, you think you're straight, but because you aren't cisgendered you aren't really straight"

I get why they consider that offensive!

makes sense to me

i know it'll be too hard to not reply to the low-hanging fruit of obvious wrongness here so i'm not even going to try. no one here has been saying that being on that list of acronyms somehow makes you "queer." that was never said.